Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 79,348 judgments in total from the Lahore High Court.

• Malkani Sahibzadi Tiwana vs Shahbaz Khan and 5 others1985 CLC 2717 · Lahore High Court · 1982-02-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Taj Din vs Additional District Judge and others1985 MLD 241 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
• Malik Shabbir Ahmad vs Additional District Judge and others1985 MLD 1264 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• Malik Piran Ditta and others vs Ghulam Muhammad1985 MLD 1140 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1257 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Tufail another vs The State1985 MLD 743 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Shafi vs Karim-Ud-Din and others1985 CLC 2483 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Saeed vs Mian Muhammad Siddique1985 MLD 1440 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-09
  Order VIII Rule 10 CPCspecific performancewritten statementpronouncement of judgmentrecording of evidencepleadings as evidencejudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge who decreed the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell without recording evidence, relying solely on the defendant's failure to file a written statement under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question is whether a court can straightaway decree a suit under Order VIII, Rule 10 without requiring or recording legal evidence upon the defendant's failure to file a written statement. The Lahore High Court held that Order VIII, Rule 10 vests a judicial discretion in the court either to pronounce judgment or make such other order as it thinks fit, but pleadings do not constitute evidence, and unproved private documents cannot be relied upon without proper proof. The court laid down that the trial court's judicial conscience must be satisfied about the genuineness of the case and that a judgment cannot be based on no evidence whatsoever, thereby setting aside the decree and remanding the matter for fresh disposal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court can decree a suit under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording any evidence upon the defendant's failure to file a written statement?
  • Do pleadings or unverified statements constitute legal evidence upon which a civil court can base a decree?
  • How must the discretion under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be exercised by a trial court when a party fails to present a written statement?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Nawaz vs Town Committee, Ghakhar and others1985 CLC 2891 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Nawaz vs Muhammad Shujahat Raja and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 248 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Afzal and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 214 · Lahore High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
• Malik Mahmood Akhtar vs Mirza Amjad Beg and 6 others1985 MLD 379 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
• Malik Gul Shah vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities and 21985 PLD Lahore 294 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
• Malik Ghulam Mustafa vs Lahore Development Authority and others1985 CLC 1922 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Malik Faiz Muhammad Awan and 6 Others vs Punjab Road Transport1985 PLC (C.S.) 868 · Lahore High Court · 1976-03-22Read full judgment →
• Major Shaukat Ali Randhwa vs Mst. Zartaj Hamid and others1985 CLC 3011 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-21Read full judgment →
• Major Ahsan Omar vs Director (Admn. and Operation) and 3 Others1985 PLD Lahore 391 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) Alauddin Akhtar vs The Collector and others1985 CLC 2939 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• Mahmooda Begum vs Commissioner, Lahore and Others1985 PLD Lahore 347 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Anwar vs Deputy Commissioner and others1985 CLC 2569 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
• Mahmood alias Mohda and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2120 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Akhtar Khan vs Dr.Muhammad Hayat Khan1985 CLC 2853 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mahboob vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1535 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mahar Hakeem vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 596 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-09Read full judgment →
• Madrassa Ziaulaloom vs Government of Punjab1985 CLC 2963 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-25Read full judgment →
• Madam Zeba vs The State1985 MLD 1596 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
• Madam Zeba (Film Artist) vs The StatePTCL 1985 (CL.) 493 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-24Read full judgment →
• Ma Nzoor vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2914 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• M.H. Merchant vs Muhammad Anwar and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2162 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
• M. Zikria Khan vs Aftab Ali Khan and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Lahore 319 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-01
  divorcetalaqMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceArbitration CouncilUnion Committeereconciliationconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated constitutional petitions arose from a dispute regarding the effectiveness of a divorce pronounced under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The core legal question was whether a Chairman of a Union Committee or Council is vested with the authority to suspend, annul, or declare ineffective a divorce upon the expiry of the statutory ninety-day period following the receipt of the notice of Talaq, particularly when reconciliation fails or a party defaults in appearance. The Lahore High Court held that the Chairman lacks any legal authority to annul a divorce or prevent it from becoming effective. The Court ruled that once a notice of Talaq is delivered to the Chairman and the ninety-day period expires without revocation by the husband, the divorce becomes effective automatically by operation of law, regardless of the non-appearance of parties before the Arbitration Council. The key principle laid down is that the Chairman's role is strictly limited to initiating reconciliation proceedings, and he possesses no adjudicatory power to declare a validly notified divorce ineffective.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Chairman of a Union Committee or Council have the authority to annul a divorce or suspend its operation under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • When does a divorce become effective after the pronouncement of Talaq and the transmission of notice to the Chairman under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • What are the legal consequences if a party fails to appear before the Chairman or the Arbitration Council for reconciliation proceedings?
  • Is a Chairman or an Arbitration Council required to issue a formal certificate to make a divorce effective under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Latif Qureshi vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1680 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
• M. Ikram Hassan Khan vs The Province of West Pakistan through Secretary, Home Department and 2 others1985 CLC 789 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• M. C. Jhang vs Umar Daraz1985 MLD 1474 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• M. Aslam Awan vs Ras Tariq Chaudhary1985 CLC 2514 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-07
  second appealmisreading of evidenceunregistered firmejectment ordercollusive suitdeclaratory suitpartnership act
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal impugns the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent-firm against an ejectment order was decreed. The core legal questions involved whether the respondents proved their independent possession of the shop as a firm or if the suit was barred by non-registration under partnership law, and whether there was a misreading of evidence by the lower courts. The Lahore High Court held that the lower courts committed gross misreading and perversity in appreciating the evidence, which clearly showed that the father alone was in continuous possession while the sons were students, employees, or abroad, and that the suit by an unregistered firm was barred under section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The key principles laid down are that an unregistered firm cannot institute a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract including a lease, and that findings based on a misreading of evidence resulting in perverse conclusions are liable to be set aside in second appeal along with the imposition of compensatory costs for collusive litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unregistered firm can institute a suit to enforce a right arising from a contract such as the hiring of premises?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be set aside in second appeal on the ground of misreading of evidence?
  • Whether a suit brought by sons in the name of a firm to nullify an ejectment order passed against their father can be deemed collusive?
  • Does the bar under section 69 of the Partnership Act apply to a contract to hire a shop?
  Read full judgment →
• Lyallpur Cotton Mills vs Authority under Payment of Wages Act1985 PLC 563 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
• Lt.-Col. (Rtd.) Manzoor Elahi Khawaja vs Additional District Judge, Lahore and 2 others1985 MLD 1099 · Lahore High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
• Lt. (Retd.) Haji Walayat Khan and another vs Mst. Ghulam Sakina and another1985 MLD 199(2) · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1260 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
• Liaqat vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1392 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-18Read full judgment →
• Liaqat and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2043 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Zafar vs Muhammad Iqbal and others1985 CLC 2809 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1084 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• Lal vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2009 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-12Read full judgment →
• Lal Masih and 3 others vs The State1985 MLD 1037 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-01Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan vs Allah Bakhsh and Others1985 PLD Lahore 610 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1689 · Lahore High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan and 9 Others vs The State1985 PLD Lahore 584 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• Lal Din vs The State1985 MLD 841 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-22Read full judgment →
• Lahore Municipal Corporation vs Sh. Fazal Karim and 4 others1985 MLD 206 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority and another vs Messrs, Ali Con Ltd.1985 MLD 381 · Lahore High Court · 1985-06-01Read full judgment →
• Khushi vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2070 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1973 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and others vs Haji Muhammad Zakaria1985 CLC 2654 · Lahore High Court · 1984-06-08Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2454 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-29Read full judgment →
• Khushi Masih vs The State1985 MLD 822 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-05Read full judgment →
• Khush Muhammad and 3 others vs Sher Muhammad and 6 others1985 MLD 1432 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-01Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Muhammad vs Anwar Khan1985 CLC 2895 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Anwar vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 97 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-07Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Alam and 2 others vs Muhammad Shah Nawaz and 12 others1985 CLC 1286 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
• Khuda Yar and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2849 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-03Read full judgment →
• Khizar vs The State1985 MLD 875 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
• Khizar Hayat vs The State1985 MLD 671 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-07Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Munawar vs Nisar Ahmad and 2 others1985 CLC 1613 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-15Read full judgment →
• Khanzada Hadayat Ali Khan vs Mazhar Ali Khan and others1985 P Cr. L J 2871 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-09
  acquittal under section 249-Aco-operative society disputecriminal breach of trustanti-corruptionspecial leave to appealinternal managementpreliminary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comprises nine petitions for special leave to appeal against the consolidated order of the Senior Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Lahore, acquitting the respondents under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 in private complaints filed under sections 409, 420, 468, 166, 167, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal question was whether disputes touching the internal management and business of a co-operative society, remediable under section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, preclude criminal prosecution or require resolution through the mechanisms provided under the Co-operative Societies Act. The court held that although the trial court erred in failing to record preliminary evidence before entertaining applications for acquittal, remand was unnecessary as the dispute inherently touched upon the internal management of the society, which falls within the statutory framework of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The court laid down that where disputes regarding embezzlement and cheating relate to the business of a co-operative society, the statutory mechanism under the Co-operative Societies Act must be invoked, and technical irregularities in procedure do not warrant interference if the ultimate conclusion is correct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether disputes touching the business and internal management of a co-operative society must be resolved through the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Can an appellate court decline to remand a case for recording preliminary evidence if the ultimate legal result would remain unchanged?
  • Does the Registrar of Co-operative Societies have the power to initiate criminal prosecution under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad vs The State1985 MLD 1378 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-06Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2238 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khan and 2 others vs The State1985 MLD 1032 · Lahore High Court · 1985-07-02Read full judgment →
• Khaliq Ahmad vs The State1985 MLD 1373 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-06Read full judgment →
• Khalil Iqbal vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 525 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-29Read full judgment →
• Khalid Sultan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 241 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-20
  criminal revisionChemical Examiner reportexpert evidencenarcotics possessionburden of proofjudicial functionconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Article 4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979 (P.O. No. 4 of 1979), for the possession of Charas. The core legal question is whether a cryptic, one-line report from a Chemical Examiner, which fails to detail the tests applied or the grounds for the opinion, constitutes sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction. The Court held that relying solely on such a meager report amounts to an improper delegation of the judicial function to the expert. The Court emphasized that because the Chemical Examiner does not appear in court for cross-examination, their report must be comprehensive, providing the specific grounds and methodology for the conclusion reached. Finding the report insufficient to satisfy the judicial conscience, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioner. The key principle established is that an expert's report, when serving as the primary basis for conviction, must be full and complete, as it effectively replaces the testimony the expert would have provided had they been called as a witness.

  Questions settled

  • Is a one-line report from a Chemical Examiner sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction?
  • Does a court improperly delegate its judicial function by relying on an unsupported expert report?
  • What level of detail is required in a Chemical Examiner's report for it to be admissible as proof of guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Sharif Malik vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1448 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
• Maratab Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1183 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1595 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs Salahuddin1985 P Cr. L J 1611 · Lahore High Court · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner/Chief Settlement1985 MLD 355 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
• Khalid Ahmad Khan vs Mst. Razia Begum and others1985 CLC 1 · Lahore High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
• Khaki Jan and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2074 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
• Khair Din and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1985 MLD 359 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain Khalid vs Government of the Punjab1985 PLC (C.S.) 678 · Lahore High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 32 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-14Read full judgment →
• Kennith S. Ziebelman vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2586 · Lahore High Court · 1985-02-16Read full judgment →
• Kemal Sharif Rana and 33 Others vs Province of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Health, Islamabad and 2 Others1985 PLD Lahore 135 · Lahore High Court · 1984-09-20
  implied repealallopathic medicinemedical practice regulationwrit of mandamusstatutory interpretationquackerymedical permits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, unregistered medical practitioners, sought the enforcement of the Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance, 1962, and the 1968 Rules to obtain permits for prescribing antibiotic and dangerous drugs. The core legal question was whether the subsequent promulgation of the Medical and Dental Degrees Ordinance, 1982, impliedly repealed the 1962 Ordinance and the 1968 Rules. The Court held that the 1982 Ordinance did not impliedly repeal the 1962 Ordinance. It determined that both statutes could coexist, as they served the common objective of eliminating quackery and regulating medical practice. The Court affirmed that repeal by implication is not favored and requires clear repugnancy between statutes, which was absent here. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to process the petitioners' applications for permits under the 1962 Ordinance and 1968 Rules within six months. The principle laid down is that where two statutes can be harmoniously construed, the court will not infer repeal by implication, and the re-enactment of a law does not automatically repeal intermediate legislation unless there is a clear legislative intent or necessary inconsistency.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Medical and Dental Degrees Ordinance, 1982, impliedly repeal the Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Ordinance, 1962?
  • Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the government to process applications for medical permits under existing rules?
  • Under what circumstances does a subsequent statute impliedly repeal an earlier one?
  • Are the Allopathic System (Prevention of Misuse) Rules, 1968, still operative despite the enactment of the Medical and Dental Degrees Ordinance, 1982?
  Read full judgment →
• Karim Bibi vs Station House Officer, Police Station Rajana1985 P Cr. L J 213 · Lahore High Court · 1978-02-01Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh and others vs The State-1985 MLD 1392 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
• Karim Bakhsh and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2298 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-13Read full judgment →
• Karamat vs The State1985 MLD 871 · Lahore High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
• Karamat and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1982 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
• Karam Hussain vs Abdul Karim and 2 others1985 CLC 794 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
• Karam Bhari vs Muhammad Saeed and others1985 P Cr. L J 731 · Lahore High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• Karam and 8 others vs Chief Land Commissioner, Lahore and another1985 MLD 146 · Lahore High Court · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
• Kaneez Fatima vs District Magistrate, Sialkot and others1985 P Cr. L J 2707 · Lahore High Court · 1984-07-14Read full judgment →
• Kamir and another vs The State1985 MLD 689 · Lahore High Court · 1984-02-24Read full judgment →
• Kamal Din and others vs Muhammad Hussain1985 MLD 1012 · Lahore High Court · 1983-12-16Read full judgment →
• Kalu vs Hafiz Abdul Rashid and 2 Others1985 PLD Lahore 461 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
• Kafait Hussain vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1764 · Lahore High Court · 1985-03-24Read full judgment →
• Jindu Khan vs Faraza and 2 others1985 CLC 634 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
• Jind a N vs Rahim Bakhsh1985 CLC 2539 · Lahore High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
• Jehangir vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 522 · Lahore High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
• Jehangir and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2905 · Lahore High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• Javid and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1901 · Lahore High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →